If accepted, the last-minute peace deal would see both parties make a substantial donation to charity and avoid impending mediation that is set to run for the next fortnight in a bid to avoid a further five-day libel fight in the summer.
Coleen and Rebeckah – wives of former England national team football players Wayne Rooney and Jamie Vardy – would pay their own costs under the deal, known in legal circles as a ‘drop hands’ settlement, The Sun on Sunday reported on Saturday.
The pair would ‘agree to disagree’ in central claims made by 34-year-old Coleen, who publicly accused Rebekah of giving the press ‘false stories’ about her life.
Coleen says she discovered the alleged betrayal by carrying out a months-long ‘sting operation’ on social media leading to the ‘Wagatha Christie’ nickname.
Mrs Rooney infamously wrote on Instagram and Twitter: ‘I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them. It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’
Coleen Rooney (pictured right) has handed Rebekah Vardy (pictured left) a make or break offer to ‘agree to disagree’ over the pair’s row to avoid a showdown in High Court showdown.
‘Coleen has tried to settle this on three previous occasions,’ a source told The Sun on Sunday. ‘As far as she is concerned this has gone too far. The legal costs on both sides are well into six figures.’
The source said that after Coleen’s sister Rose died in 2013 from a genetic disorder, aged just 14, and that she would rather seen the money that could be spent on lawyers go towards the NHS instead.
‘Coleen and her family owe so much to the NHS,’ the source was quoted as saying. ‘She’d be far happier to see the money they would have spent on lawyers being used in a more positive and productive way.’
Mother-of-five Rebekah Vardy, 38, has furiously denied the allegations of leaking stories to the press, with a preliminary hearing last year ruling in her favour and the judge ordered Coleen to pay £22,913 in costs.
In a bid to avoid a bitter court battle, the two sides are set to virtually meet to settle the dispute amicably, The Sun reported earlier this month, with a mediator to sit on the call.
Sources have told the paper the talks are unlikely to be successful, with Mrs Rooney ‘determined to see this through to the bitter end’ and Mrs Vardy desperate to prove her innocence. The latest report could represent a change of heart from Mrs Rooney.
The source said: ‘At the moment they’re digging in. It’ll take something seismic for this to come to an end without it needing to go to court.’
Mrs Rooney infamously wrote on Instagram and Twitter: ‘I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them. It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account’
Earlier this month, court papers claimed that Mrs Rooney had help from ‘third parties’ to draft her ‘Wagatha Christie’ statement.
Should accusations that it was ‘prepared in advance’ with help from others be proved true, questions will be asked about whether Mrs Rooney’s five-month investigation into the leaks was thorough enough.
Lawyers claim Mrs Rooney didn’t properly look into whether the leaked information could have come from her or her husband’s team of staff – and not Mrs Vardy.
Mrs Vardy’s lawyers say the simultaneously-timed posts – on Mrs Rooney’s Instagram, Facebook and Twitter accounts – sought ‘maximum publicity for the defendant’s message’.
The documents, seen by The Sun, read: ‘The post… appears to have been prepared in advance.
‘It is inferred that the defendant had already reached a (false) conclusion to responsibility on a flawed “investigation” and rushed to publication without properly considering the evidence or making any further inquiry.’
Rebekah Vardy is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, pictured together at the Pride of Britain Awards in 2017
Mrs Vardy’s legal team have now requested to know when the post was written and who knew what information at what stage.
A spokesperson for Mrs Rooney thinks the libel case will be defended successfully.
In November, the High Court ruled Mrs Rooney’s post ‘clearly identified’ Mrs Vardy as being ‘guilty of the serious and consistent breach of trust’ – but minutes later Mrs Rooney hit back with a statement via her spokesman, saying she was ‘keen’ to hear what Mrs Vardy has to say in court.
The ruling related to the wording in the final sentence of the post, with Mrs Rooney claiming she simply referred to Mrs Vardy’s Instagram account rather than Mrs Vardy herself.
But the judge said an ordinary reader would not take the word ‘account’ to ‘indicate that Mrs Rooney remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer was’.
He also disagreed with Mrs Rooney’s claim that using multiple ellipses in the final line diluted the meaning.
Coleen Rooney is married to Derby County manager Wayne Rooney, pictured while he was at Manchester United in 2016
This means the court has no doubt as to who the accusation was made against – Mrs Vardy – which will be a consideration if the libel case goes to trial this year.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Warby said Mrs Rooney’s message was ‘a considered post, using wording composed with some care’, adding: ‘It would be clear to the ordinary reader from the outset that it was meant seriously and intended to convey a message of some importance.’
The judge disagreed with Mrs Rooney’s claim that using multiple ellipses in the infamous final line of the post – ‘It’s…………….Rebekah Vardy’s account’ – diluted the meaning.
He wrote: ‘Indeed, the element of suspense introduced by the multiple dots seems to me designed to raise expectations of a dramatic revelation.
‘It tends to emphasise the importance of the name that is then provided. It would be a poor denouement if all that was being said was that the named individual was to be suspected of the wrongdoing but it might be someone else.’
He also rejected Mrs Rooney’s contention that she simply referred to Mrs Vardy’s Instagram account rather than Mrs Vardy herself.
The judge ruled: ‘The reader is told straight away that the message is about bad behaviour by ‘someone who I trusted’. The post then takes the form of a ‘whodunnit’.’
He added: ‘I certainly do not think that the ordinary reader would take that single word (account), albeit repeated, to indicate that Mrs Rooney remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer was.’
He later said: ‘There is nothing in these words, apart from the word ‘account’, that in any way suggests that the behaviour of which Mrs Rooney is complaining might have been carried out by anyone other than the account holder, Mrs Vardy.’